Two Vipers

[Thadeus]

Hello there.

 

I don't know if You have it similar, but I get a million ideas for different builds. All over the time. This makes me push back some other projects afar. This is one of this projects that keeps getting pushed down the ladder (along with some 1/48 Phantoms). And since today I got my resin goodies from Flying Leathernecks for Hornets I really need to keep my focus on this one or else I'll go off building more 1/48 F/A-18's. I keep wanting to build that F/A-18F from VFA-211 that would look nice with a Hasegawa F/A-18D... no no. wait.

 

Ok. I'm focused. I never built a Tamiya kit. And I keep hearing Tamiya Viper is the thing in 1/48. And frankly I already built the Italeri, Hasegawa and even Kinetic Vipers. I liked all of them! Even the Kinetic one. And why would I build just one kit at a time? It's better to have two running models in 1/48. That is well within my 3 x 1/48 rule. I wonder how will they compare.

 

 

In order to give myself a challenge, and to celebrate building a Tamiya kit I bought a lot of aftermarket stuff. Including even a resin tailpipe.

 

 

And to be fair to the new Kinetic Gold kit, I bought similar stuff for this one. I got myself a resin Eduard seat for Tamiya Viper, and print Eduard seat for Kinetic Gold Viper. Wonder how they will compare. Tamiya is "late" and the Kinetic is "early"... I wonder what is the difference.

 

 

The plan is quite simple. I want to build a Tamiya Viper. And I want to build a Viper in the second best scheme possible - a Norwegian Viper. Building one would require some conversion or kitbashing. But I can build two. Plus I like comparison builds. So comparing these two kits seem like fun!

 

Kinetic will be a RNoAF #680 as depicted in the Kinetic sheet from deployment to Afghanistan. Apparently, Kinetic kit is perfect for just that airframe. It's a MLU without all the strengthening plates on top of the fuselage and wings. This thread was extremely helpful with the strenthening plates. All I need to do is to try and modify the tail base to look more like an F-16A MLU tail - be more narrow. This doesn't seem too much work. And if I fail I can leave it as is. I bet this is something that will not bother me. I hope.

Regarding the plates, indeed some photos support the claim there are no plates.

 

https://www.airhistory.net/photo/326751/680

https://www.airhistory.net/photo/322247/680

https://www.airhistory.net/photo/320720/680

https://www.f-16.net/g3/f-16-photos/album37/album09/680_003 <- even I can't say there are any strenghthening plates!

https://www.f-16.net/g3/f-16-photos/album37/album09/680_001

 

it did have the plates present during 2011 Odyssey Dawn deployment - interesting.

https://www.f-16.net/g3/f-16-photos/album37/album09/680_004

 

This is actually terrible news, as I really wanted a Norwegian F-16A with plates, and with PIDS pylons. I don't have PIDS pylons but I got myself some plates. But I also wanted to make the jets flying in Afghanistan. There is also this nice article online about European Vipers in Afghanistan https://www.northernskiesaviation.com/post/2006-epaf-f-16s-in-afghanistan

 

Ok. This is the first build - the one I want on my shelf. Second is the Tamiya Viper - the one I want to build.

I want to build an 91-0345 from 2011 since I have some half decent decals - Authentic Decals sheet 48-65. Not the best decals, but I've used their stuff before and it was at least good enough for a Hasegawa F/A-18C from VMFA-312, so for the Tamiya F-16C they will work well. Especially since there were a lot of critical decals on that sheet. I might update the time of the build as the jet seemed to have retained markings for some other deployment to Afghanistan. And that loadout seems like something different. Initially I wanted a mixed GBU-12 / GBU-38 load, or something with GBU-39 SDB's but I've not seen the latter on any pics from 2011 - 2013, but I've seen them on some pics dated 2015. I would like to build a little bit dirtier F-16 than normal though.

 

https://www.f-16.net/g3/f-16-photos/album38/album64/91-0345-1130259785

https://www.acc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1314291/gamblers-provide-sead-protect-libya/

 

Ok. I'll start opening bags as soon as I'll finish my 1/72 F/A-18A+, or if I feel like a little bit hiatus during that build.

 

Thanks for stopping by! Feel free to chime in.

 

 

 

 

 

[strikeeagle801]

Looking forward to following along with this build. I've built a couple of the 1/48 Tamiya Vipers (and one 1/32) now, and they go together very well. I have the 1/48 Kinetic 2024 Demo Team Viper kit in the stash to build at some point, so I will look to you for some pointers. Where are you going to source your rockets and GBU-54's from? I'm not aware of anyone that does the APKWS in 1/48 yet, but I could be mistaken. I think Eduard does the GBU-54's. I have a couple of other Tamiya Vipers in 1/48 to get to...One (a Block 50 from Shawk AFB) will have the other loadout you mentioned with the two GBU-38's and two slant-loaded GBU-12's. 

 

Aaron 

[Thadeus]

11 hours ago, strikeeagle801 said:

Looking forward to following along with this build. I've built a couple of the 1/48 Tamiya Vipers (and one 1/32) now, and they go together very well. I have the 1/48 Kinetic 2024 Demo Team Viper kit in the stash to build at some point, so I will look to you for some pointers. Where are you going to source your rockets and GBU-54's from? I'm not aware of anyone that does the APKWS in 1/48 yet, but I could be mistaken. I think Eduard does the GBU-54's. I have a couple of other Tamiya Vipers in 1/48 to get to...One (a Block 50 from Shawk AFB) will have the other loadout you mentioned with the two GBU-38's and two slant-loaded GBU-12's. 

 

Aaron 

Thanks!

Frankly, if You haven't mentioned it was a LAU-131 with APKWS I would've used a LAU-10. So there is one thing I might have to procure. There is a few options for either LAU-131 or LAU-68 - sorry I don't know the difference between these two pods modelingwise. And as for the rocket itself I suppose I'll have to scratchbuild something from  plastic rod.

For the GBU-54's with my modeling skills I could manage a very crude conversion of GBU-38's that are in the Kinetic kit. There are very nice GBU-54's from Reskit and Eduard that I can easilly procure. It feels like a waste of nice resin goodies for my skill level, but if I were to buy one I'd go with Eduards, as they have the fins molded and I hate placing small fins on bombs and missiles. Heck, even the stuff I got feels like overkill - especially with the resin exhaust pipes.

Same with VER twin rack - I can use the one from Kinetic or Hasegawa F/A-18 and add a few parts to the rear of the rack. Resin parts look a bit wider than my plastic parts, but I'd need to have them both in hand to really check. TER-9A will come from Kinetic kit as well. I do have a Tamiya ANG kit that I could rob of a compatibile TER, but I dislike opening boxes prior to starting kits. It wastes that new kit smell.

 

As for what to expect, I suppose my previous three build of F-16's would be a good comparison. Kind of wish I did a Polish Viper as well. Perhaps an F-16D this time? Or a Tamiya kit conversion? Not much of a comparison build with two Tamiya kits, right?

 

Thanks for stopping by!

[strikeeagle801]

From what I gather on Google, the LAU-68 is used by the Navy, whereas the -131 is used by the Air Force. The -68 has a coating (like the bombs the Navy uses aboard carriers) that increases cook-off time in the case of a fire. It also has one firing connector, whereas the -131 has two. In 1/48 scale, I doubt these differences would be very (if at all) noticeable. I have a few LAU-68's from the AMK Ordnace Set if you are interested. More than willing to send them your way if you want. 

 

Aaron

[WouldbeIceman]

I hope you have fun building #680. I have quite a few hours in it. But beware - the Kinetic MLU is airframe wise (panels++) a F-16C Block 50/52. There are several panels and a few lumps and bumps that differs the Block 50/ 52 from the early block 10/15 MLUs. To add to this is the errors on the parapack/ base of the fin (way too thick), Wrongly shaped RWR antennas on the parapack, nose shape, nozzle thickness and shape++, are other challenges of the MLU kit. If you want to have it "correct", you need to fill in the inner leading edge flaps fasteners. The MLU and A/ B models have only two - look up your references, if this is important to you. Strenghtening plates aft of the canopy are mandatory for RNoAF MLUs.

 

Take this as nagging and disappointment form a Viper guy, who really hoped that Kinetic would make "the" MLU kit after redesigning and improving the old one. The most important part is having fun and finish the kits we start building. I am eagerly awaiting the Mini Base F-16A Block 20. Yes, again different panels from a MLU, but hopefully an easier way than the 19 Tamiya F-16C that will end up as A and MLU birds.

 

#680 is a block 15 and did not have the strenghtening plates until later. It was known to be a "up bird", meaning little or seldom snags with it. Code One is the American term.

It dropped 5 GBU-12s during the deployments to Afghanistan. Most of the time show of force was enough.

 

Check Six and build something!

 

Wouldbeiceman

[Niels]

Hi 

All the RNoAF Vipers got the stiffener plates - the question is what timeframe you want to model? 

As for the PIDS+ - Here is a good source: F-16 - Shop | Wolf 3D Resin Parts

[Thadeus]

On 12/20/2024 at 7:30 AM, strikeeagle801 said:

From what I gather on Google, the LAU-68 is used by the Navy, whereas the -131 is used by the Air Force. The -68 has a coating (like the bombs the Navy uses aboard carriers) that increases cook-off time in the case of a fire. It also has one firing connector, whereas the -131 has two. In 1/48 scale, I doubt these differences would be very (if at all) noticeable. I have a few LAU-68's from the AMK Ordnace Set if you are interested. More than willing to send them your way if you want. 

 

Aaron

 

Ha! I knew there had to be a difference. I'll probably leave the final loadout decisions for the mid build. If I'm going the 2011 Odyssey Dawn route, it would probably mean only AGM-88's and some A/A missiles. Thank You for the very kind offer. I'll have to check what I have in my inventory and reach a final decision. I might have a LAU-68 somewhere.

 

On 12/22/2024 at 7:19 PM, WouldbeIceman said:

I hope you have fun building #680. I have quite a few hours in it. But beware - the Kinetic MLU is airframe wise (panels++) a F-16C Block 50/52. There are several panels and a few lumps and bumps that differs the Block 50/ 52 from the early block 10/15 MLUs. To add to this is the errors on the parapack/ base of the fin (way too thick), Wrongly shaped RWR antennas on the parapack, nose shape, nozzle thickness and shape++, are other challenges of the MLU kit. If you want to have it "correct", you need to fill in the inner leading edge flaps fasteners. The MLU and A/ B models have only two - look up your references, if this is important to you. Strenghtening plates aft of the canopy are mandatory for RNoAF MLUs.

 

Take this as nagging and disappointment form a Viper guy, who really hoped that Kinetic would make "the" MLU kit after redesigning and improving the old one. The most important part is having fun and finish the kits we start building. I am eagerly awaiting the Mini Base F-16A Block 20. Yes, again different panels from a MLU, but hopefully an easier way than the 19 Tamiya F-16C that will end up as A and MLU birds.

 

#680 is a block 15 and did not have the strenghtening plates until later. It was known to be a "up bird", meaning little or seldom snags with it. Code One is the American term.

It dropped 5 GBU-12s during the deployments to Afghanistan. Most of the time show of force was enough.

 

Check Six and build something!

 

Wouldbeiceman

 

Thanks a lot for all the info. I'll have a blast, I'm sure. Norwegian Vipers are my second favourite after the Polish Vipers. I'm aware of some Kinetic Gold kit errors. Not really the panel lines - this I might skip over. I'll see with some reference material I have. I know there was some difference between the F-16A and F-16C panels on the rear of the fuselage (I hope this is adressed by two different pieces) and on the right side by the fuel cell panels. I don't know if I'll rescribe panels if they are incorrect - probably not, as I dislike scribing lines, especially if they have to be any shape more complex than a short line 😉 I was not aware there was an issue with new Kinetic kit nose. I mean, I remember there was something with the older kit, but I happilly disregarded any issues. It sits alongside my Hasegawa F-16F and looks to my eye pretty close in shape. But since I'm building a Tamiya and Kinetic kit - why not check it side by side 😉

 

I take all the complaints regarding a kit I can get. It will not discourage me from building it - remember I built the older one and rather enjoyed myself. But I like being aware there is something off. Even if in the end I'll disregard it. It's a model after all, and my skills are not great either so I might just screw stuff up.

 

 

On 12/23/2024 at 9:56 AM, Niels said:

Hi 

All the RNoAF Vipers got the stiffener plates - the question is what timeframe you want to model? 

As for the PIDS+ - Here is a good source: F-16 - Shop | Wolf 3D Resin Parts

 

Thanks for the link for the resin parts. Apparently, in 2008 in Afghanistan #680 used regular pylons.

 

As for the strengthening plates - I was hoping to add all of them to the airframe. But apparently, by the 2008 the #680 wasn't yet equipped with them (save for the one by the canopy). By the 2011 Odyssey Dawn deployment all the plates were there. But I don't have the decals for that timeframe, and I kind of like the markings in Kinetic kit.

Frankly doing both models as they appeared in the same operation would be interesting. But I'll stick to the Kinetic markings.

 

I did a #671 way back in 1/72. I hope to do a better job this time. This is it's final picture before striking it out of register in january 2015. (no reinforcement plates present as I was not aware they were existing).

 

 

 

Merry Christmass to You all!

 

 

 

 

[WouldbeIceman]

The most important thing in this hobby is to have fun! Go ahead and build your version of the object you like. Nitpickers like me, can at our best give some advice and tips - but if anyone wants to follow them is purely up to themselves! Your #671 is a beauty - top scorer with 5 GBU-12 during Afghan Falcon.

 

Check Six and Build something!

[Thadeus]

Ok, time to do some updating.

 

Both kits have plenty of plastic inside. I've put an old Kinetic kit as some further reference.

 

 

Tamiya

 

Kinetic Gold

 

 

And again, for comparison, old Kinetic

 

 

As most of You know what Tamiya kit looks like and where lie its flaws, I'm going to focus on some comparison shots with Kinetic Gold kit.

On the sprues (and still in the bags) parts look very nice. Molding is crisp, panel lines are very delicate. I've noticed however still some imperfections, and a lot of ejector pin marks. Plus these weird things in the intake duct. This will probably not be seen however.

 

 

 

 

 

Look at the surface detail.

 

 

These are two rear panels, for the F-16A You will need the right one.

 

 

 

One thing You have to appreciate in the Kinetic Gold kit is the amount of different options. Aside from some panel lines that need to be filled, and at least the bulges on the wing root that either have to be sanded or left, You can build multiple F-16 versions from even the basic kit. Two types of undercarriage are present, three types of instrument panel. What I like is there are none of these massive attachment points of the earlier kit.

 

Plus the detail is better than in the previous version.

 

 

Comparing Tamiya kit to Kinetc kit is going to be interesting. Panel detailing looks very similar between both kits. Tamiya seems to have additional detail here or there - such as barely visible canopy seal on the Tamiya kit.

 

 

 

 

 

As a little bonus, here is the old Kinetic and new Kinetic kit details. Most of the panel lines are exactly where they were on the old kit.

 

 

But the panel lines are quite heavy. Interesting for me, this is actually old Kinetic F-16A (the NSAWC boxing). And it actually features proper rear fuselage part.

 

 

So right about now I figured I could as well build all three kits. So the project is evolving. Actually, this is good, I'll do some testing of my planned corrections of the MLU kit on the old Kinetic kit.

 

I got myself some additional aftermarket for the third kit, along with some stuff I might use on the two previous ones.

 

 

Thanks for stopping by!

[Niels]

I've just buildt a Tamiya and new-generation Kinetic in parallell myself. The biggest issue with the old generation F-16's from Kinetic is the nose profile which is wrong. 
The new generation is much much better, to the point I have considered mx'n'matching with Tamiya to create a new F-16A🤔 Not decided yet, but will have to consider the matching of the panel line types before concluding.

[Thadeus]

I've taken a few shots, and I hope to take more of completed Tamiya and Kinetic Gold Vipers.

 

Hasegawa F-16F

 

 

Old Kinetic F-16C

 

 

I have some more comparison photos, but I'll track back to them when I get to appropriate point in the build.

First thing to check was the fit of the upper fuselage halves.

 

Old Kinetic

 

 

Kinetic Gold

 

 

Tamiya

 

 

Obviously, Tamiya fit is excellent. With Kinetic Gold close second and Old Kinetic not that far behind. I only dryfitted the parts here, however I did end up with tiny step on the Tamiya kit, a slightly larger one on the Kinetic Gold kit - with a little bit of mismatch on the curve of the fuselage. It migh have been my lack of skill though.

On the old Kinetic kit I did not end up with a step, but the seam is a little on the big side.

 

Inside of the cockpits. All three pits look similar with both Kinetic cockpits being almost 100% the same. Old Kinetic to the left, Kinetic Gold in the middle and Tamiya to the right. You can see the difference in sharpness even in my pic, although the old Kinetic kit isn't really bad.

 

 

All three kits feature sidewall details. Only old Kinetic features anything resembling armrest.

 

 

As I got some goodies for the two original kits, I'd like to run a little comparison between the Eduard Space and Red Fox 3d cockpit details. Red Fox stuff isn't decals but rather some prepainted printed sets. Eduard set is decals with PE. I have to say, while the sidewall and rear bulkhead decals are very nice, I'll stick with painted kit parts. Mostly because I have very little faith in my skills with chisel.

 

 

Eudard is a little on the flat side, probably more realistic, while Red Fox has some very noticable switches.

 

 

And here is everything applied - Tamiya to the left with Red Fox details, in the middle there is old Kinetic with some paint applied, and to the right there is Kinetic Gold with Eduard decals. Decals were easier to apply than Red Fox stuff due to the thickness of 3d printed plate. It just required a little clamping using some thin tipped tweezers.

 

 

 

[Thadeus]

And a tiny step towards completion. I assembled the intakes with the covers and dryfitted them to the fuselage. In the hindsight, I should've assembled the front and rear intake pieces in one and then join them top and bottom, instead of joining two full halves of the intake. Still, all three kits have pretty nice fit in there, but it just might have been better. Plus it's quite hard to paint it. Paint doesn't want to flow smoothly and there was a lot of dusting visible when looking in the intake. If I painted the lower and upper halves  and only had to repair the side joints the effect might have been better. Besides, I could have overflowed the side of the intakes with paint that would help to hide the seam there. Next time...

 

I left off the intake lip. Both Tamiya and Kinetic gold seem to have fitted well, with the old Kinetic fitting quite bad with about 0.5 mm gap.

 

 

So I glued the intake lip to some styrene sheet and only then cut it out. Quite crude way of doing things, but it kind of worked for me I suppose.

 

 

Here are the joints on the upper fuselage halves. Tamiya is pretty much the best one. It's only paint here, no sanding or polishing.

 

 

 

Kinetic Gold i'm most dissapointed in. I was hoping a streess free joint. I had to sand it a bit with 400 and 800 grit to smooth it out. Next time I'll glue it in sections. I feel the outer portions of the joint are much worse than the top of the joint. There was a small step there. It is barelly visible now. And with my skils at photography, these are probably the most detailed shots anyone will ever see of that area.

 

 

 

 

And Kinetic GOld. I really like this kit somehow. And I'm quite pleased with the joint here. There is absoluttely no step and I only sanded it with two or three swipes with 400 grit and then with 800 grit. So with the joint being the worst of the three I'd say it's my second best joint. I mean... it's almost the width of all the other panel lines. Just slightly deeper.

 

Thanks for stopping by!

 

 

[Thadeus]

Ok, so basicly my biggest modification in this build is coming to an end.

As You probably know, the fin base of Kinetic and Kinetic Gold kits is wrong for an F-16A. Well, perhaps not wrong, but has some shape issues. It resembles shortened F-16C fin base - it's a bit too square. This means there is a very significant step on the transition from the actual fin to the fin base.

 

I actually started with Kinetic Gold kit as I have two of these kits, but I didn't take any pictures. What I did however was I sanded the rear attachment point at the top and removed some of the pieces. The basic idea was to squeeze the parts and try and make a smooth transition from trapeze shape of the front fin base to the box shape of parachute pack. Hey - I'm eyeballing everything here, what can possibly go wrong?

 

 

 

This is v.1.0 and it wasn't too good really. I do like the front piece angle but the transition is too skewed to look good. I'm working currently on the v.1.01 and I'll try to cut the parachute pack to squeeze it a bit more and add a tiny spacer to the front part. Then I'll have to fill the gap to the rear that I decided early on to just ignore and deal with at a later stage.

 

 

Here is the comparison of all the fin bases from the kits. I don't like the end of the F-16A fin base. Looks a bit weird - the Kinetic Gold is a bit better, but still, to square.

 

 

My modifications on the regular fin base left me with this. It gets easilly solved by clamping.

 

And the end result of my troubles. For the regular F-16A it's not a lot of work. The extended fin of the RNoAF Viper is a little bit more troublesome since it transitions nicelly and evenly to the parapack box.

 

 

Thanks for stopping by!

[Thadeus]

If You've ever came across one of my threads, You probably noticed a long list of complaints regarding a kit. Wrong this, weird that. With Tamiya kit I expected very little in regards of steps and such. Well... It pains me to say I'm a bit let down. It's probably me with trying to really make it with minimal modifications regarding fit. But looking at many other Tamiya Vipers I never noticed such problems.

 

So next time (and there will be a next Tamia Viper for sure) I'll have to do better job at these joints.

 

Upon closer inspection, there is a slight misalignment on the upper fuselage halves joint. What is sanded here was only paint. And the fit is slightly uneven. On the dryfit it was a bit better.

 

 

Now this one is something I really shoul've done something about. The entire cannon panel aft of the gun nozzle fairing has a tiny step. I don't know if I'll fix it with the curve of the fuselage and all the details around.

 

 

And another one on top of the fuselage. Well, the top one is ok-ish but the lower insert isn't. Here I'll have to use some filler and rescribe detail. Not my strong suite.

 

 

There is some work needed on the nose and around the intake and lower fuselage joints in general. But after looking really close at these joints here, I really figured I need to take more care fitting parts. I just wished I did my usual with these shown parts. If I had removed the depressions for the parts on the rear fuselage and for the canon I would have gotten much better fit. This actually makes me afraid of starting a Tamiya Tomcat... Apparently I can't build good kits.

 

In order not to make this post solely about me ******** about Tamiya kit, here is something for some of You if You ever want to make a Kinetic F-16A with parachute pack

 

https://www.dacoproducts.com/KF16Kinetic.html

 

Of course I re discovered this only after blowing open doors that were actually left opened. From what I read it's a bit similar to my way, only probably more easy and more accurate - there are actually some measurements. It's probably for the old Kinetic kit, but I'm sure it could be used with some succes on the Gold version.

 

I'm currently working on cleaning up the seams on all three kits. Once I'll sort everything out I'll try and see what fits how. So far, the most troublesome fit areas (but not necesarilly the worst) seem to be nose panels on all three kits.

 

Thanks for stopping by!

[Janissary]

Following with interest. 

[Niels]

@ThadeusThanks for the link to the Daco page with the correction for Kinetic F-16. Will definatly try this out. 

I was curious - what have you done with the Kinetic bang seat? Personally I don't think much of them so just received Eduard replacements in the mail. Will try to assemble them later today for my 89-2178. 

Thanks

[Thadeus]

On 1/22/2025 at 9:54 PM, Janissary said:

Following with interest. 

 

Thanks! Feel free to tag along - there is some popcorn in the kitchen. I hope.

 

On 1/23/2025 at 4:55 PM, Niels said:

@ThadeusThanks for the link to the Daco page with the correction for Kinetic F-16. Will definatly try this out. 

I was curious - what have you done with the Kinetic bang seat? Personally I don't think much of them so just received Eduard replacements in the mail. Will try to assemble them later today for my 89-2178. 

Thanks

 

Well, I actually am a TLAR person. For me, the Kinetic Gold seats are pretty much ok. But I did get some resin seats beforehand.

 

 

From left to the right - DEF Model seat, Eduard 3d print for Kinetic, Eduard cast for Tamiya and Aires seat.

 

 

 

I totally don't get why the 3d printed Eduard seat is "early" and the casted one is "late" other than the cushion. I'm very pleasantly surprised with the DEF Model seat. It's my first run in with the brand and it looks quite nice. The price difference was minimal - 1.00 pln (about 0.24 USD) for the DEF model seat vs Eduard seats. Aires seats I got at a sale and they were quite cheap if I remember correctly.

 

 

The kit seats are not bad. They look about right to me 😉 Ok... just don't put Kinetic seats next to say, Tamiya seat. From left to right - Tamiya, Kinetic Old, Kinetic Gold. The Kinetic Gold is pretty much the same seat as the old one - just better fitting. That horrible back plate is still there.

 

 

 

I'm still quite far away from doing all the seats. The Eduard ones require some assembly, with the cast one being the worst - there is a large PE plate with details. Some actual seat pieces are PE as well. I hope I'll be able to assemble them more or less correctly. But I have to say, they are quite nice. I might assemble all of the seats and then choose the nicest ones.

 

I've been doing some preliminary work towards choosing aftermarket to install at the rear of the jet. From left to right - Galaxy Models nozzle for Kinetic, Eduard 3d print for Kinetic, Eduard cast for Tamiya and Galaxy Models for Tamiya. I've never heard of Galaxy Models, but I did get some of their tools, and they were quite nice. They come in these crude 3d printed boxes - that's quite nice actually.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eduard set for the Tamiya kit features a very nice engine face. Almost like a piece of art. Shoot. It is supposed to be a drop fit replacement - ie should go over the intake duct.

 

 

The back end on the other hand actually is a bit larger.

 

 

It seems to be like 1 mm to large in diameter to the sides, and 2 mm to the top and bottom.  It's sandable but I don't know if I'll bother. I will do some comparison shots with nozzles and kit parts. On the other hand, that Eduard printed nozzle fits like a glove.

 

 

Thanks for stopping by!

 

 

[Thadeus]

So, time for some Kinetic love. At first, the old one.

 

Overall fit isn't the best. But with some work You can make it right. Dryfitting and shimming helps a long way.

The worst joint is that dreaded nose instalation. And if I am going to be full of myself at any point in this build, it's here. I'm really happy with this joint.

 

 

Not that bad, right? And it's only dryfit. Pics don't show the miniature missalignment on the panels. Frankly, I could just leave it as is, with all the detail being somewhat crude, but I will not.

 

 

This is the overall amount of putty that I needed - some additional sanding could make it less, but it isn't bad actually.

 

 

 

 

As for the New Kinetic, the overall fit is a little better than the old one. It's just that the nose inserts didn't want to sit quite right. They didn't require additional shims though.

 

 

Actually, the quality of panel lines make any little missalignment much more visible than on the old kit.

 

 

The nose was a bit worse fit than the older release. Which is interesting. I don't like that double halves nose.

 

 

Overall though, it seems quite nice. And I am kind of looking forward to building a Polish AF Viper with the recent release. One thing I feel is wrong still  - the flap angle. They seem to attach at a too steep angle. I'm going to have to check some more pics. They are still not glued.

 

 

 

Now, what about Tamiya? I still need to decide if I'm going to fill that joint on the upper halves. There is also some very minor sanding and perhaps filling in order.

I'm slowly getting to the weapons part which I unwiselly begun with attempting to work with Kinetic Gold weapons. But let's not get ahead of ourselves.

 

Thanks for stopping by!

 

 

[habu2]

1 hour ago, Thadeus said:

 

 

One thing I feel is wrong still  - the flap angle. They seem to attach at a too steep angle. I'm going to have to check some more pics. They are still not glued.

 

 

 

IIRC maximum flap deflection on an F-16 is 20 degrees

 

[Thadeus]

Thanks Habu. That seems right. I'd say Kinetic Gold is at about 40 degrees. And Tamiya probably at about 30.

 

So, as for Tamiya fit, it is better. Surprise surprise. The nose inserts suffered from minimal missalignment. But they did require some fiddling. The nose was a little bit too large and its curve did not meet the curve of the fuselage. It might have been due to my fiddling. But this isn't bad - some carefull sanding and I managed to make it even.

 

 

What I really should do next time is to fit all the nose inserts at the same time. This would save me some filling on the top insert.

 

 

Almost perfect fit on the underside. Nice. However I did have to rescribe all these joints.

 

 

Some work on the wings, on the LERX joint. Wonder if that was due to fitting intake prior to fitting fuselage halves. This required the most filler as of now. Also a bit filler was needed on the intake underside.

 

 

I eventually did bite the bullet and filled the joint on the upper fuselage halves. Next time I'll have to do more work here not to have to sand anything.

 

 

So.... I feel like I'm just burning my build time right now. Doing some small stuff, not wanting to sand all the canopies (and tint them). And postponing both the canopy work and painting stage. But this day is coming, as I'd like to have them painted by the end of the month.

The goal for 2025 is 12 models (as pretty much every year). But I might try to make just 12. I already have my next project planned, and it will be a Tamiya F-16. I really want to make this kit right. I even contemplated making my double Viper build a quad build.

 

Thanks for stopping by!

[Thadeus]

I really have to stop posting my plans hopes for completing something in forums. I immidiately lost any will to carry on. I'm nowhere near completing even the most basic paint scheme (here's hoping that writing this will make me kick my glutes up).

But there is some progress!!

Canopies. From left to right - Kinetic Old, Tamiya, Kinetic Gold. And I do have to say it - WOW that is one super fine seam line on the Kinetic Gold canopy. Lovelly!

 

 

Here;s a closeup

 

 

Kinetic Old isn't the worst either.

 

 

 

So after a longer while I did tint them green and stuck them on models. Some masking was done on the chicken legs and voila. Nothing can stop me from spraying.

 

 

I only got this on monday. The left one is the Kinetic Gold, right one is Tamiya. I don't know why as it's kind of pita, but I love doing marbling.

 

 

And only yesterday I managed to achieve the same result with Kinetic Old. This time however with Vallejo FS36375, not Gunze H307.

 

 

Thanks for stopping by.

 

[BastianD]

Very nice pre weathering!

[Ikon]

Nice comparison study between the kits.

[Thadeus]

On 2/26/2025 at 9:49 PM, BastianD said:

Very nice pre weathering!

 

Thank You very much. Did I mention how I love this stage? Don't know why I keep postponing it.

 

On 2/27/2025 at 2:00 AM, Ikon said:

Nice comparison study between the kits.

 

Thank You very much.

 

Basic coats x 2 checked! I've tried really hard not to make the RNOAF bird much more weathered. Pics show almost immaculate paint with only minimal weathering - mostly stained panels with dirt/sand stuff like that. I did screw up and forgot to add strengthening plates near the canopy hinge. But I'm going to add them. I've left off the tail lights. And I do regret it a little bit. I hope this will not bite me in the rear later.

 

 

Tamiya Viper is also painted. Again. For the 2011 deployment it would seem some jets were freshly painted. I don't like them that clean and uniform, so i attempted to make i t a bit more interesting.

 

 

I'm currently trying to paint the third jet. I've got the gray color first and I have to paint the blues. First the Light Blue, then the Dark Blue. Also, I have to paint radomes and some smaller details on both jets, and clean the tail demarcation line a bit. On some pictures it looks as if the BLOS antennae area is much ligher.

 

One more thing thing, and perhaps someone could help me a bit. It would seem the external tanks on the RNoAF jets are lighter. Along with the targeting pod adapter. Or am I mistaken? They seem a bit like 36375, or even a little bit lighter. I don't know about the other pylons - it would make sense if they were all same colour, but then again so would it make sense for the fuel tanks to be the same colour as the jet itself.

 

Thanks for stopping by!

[Memphis]

Very interesting project!